CAR_Public/011022.mbx                C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, October 22, 2001, Vol. 3, No. 206


                           Headlines


AMAZON.COM: Bernard Gross Initiates W.D. Washington Securities Suit
CANADA: Supreme Court Refuses Class Certification In Landfill Suit
CARESCIENCE INC.: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
CLARENT CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates CA Securities Suit
CREDIT CARDS: Court Upholds Class Certification in Retailers' Suit

CVS CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MA
DELTA FINANCIAL: NY Federal Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
DQE INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
FLORIDA: Thirteen Firefighters Sue State Due To Inadequate Health Care
GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in C.D.CA

GRAND COURT: Three Law Firms Commence Securities Suit in New Jersey
INTELLI-CHECK: Speziali Greenwald Commences NJ Securities Suit
NCI BUILDING: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit IN S.D. TX
NIKE INC.: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in Oregon Court
NORTEL NETWORKS: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY

OPUS360 CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
PENN TREATY: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
PENNSYLVANIA: Online School Parents Consider Suing 300 School Boards
PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in M.D. FL
PURCHASEPRO.COM: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in Nevada

REMEDYTEMP: Lionel Glancy Lodges Securities Suit in CA Superior Court
SHOPKO STORES: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
SOUTH KOREA: KCCI Joins Business Groups In Attacks On Lawsuits
TD WATERHOUSE: Faces Nine Securities Suits in Delaware Chancery Court
TEXAS: Harris County To Refund Court Fees in $1.4 Million Settlement
US INTERACTIVE: Weiss Yourman Commences PA Securities Suit

                          *********


AMAZON.COM: Bernard Gross Initiates W.D. Washington Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross P.C. filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of Amazon.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN) common stock between
February 2, 2000 and March 9, 2001.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, names as defendants the Company and two of its executive
officers, Jeffrey P. Bezos and Warren C. Jensen.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder arising
from material misstatements and omissions during the class period.

The suit further alleges that during the class period, Amazon.com
announced, publicized, invested in and operated a number of joint
ventures with other retailers and on-line companies, collectively
constituting the "Amazon Commerce Network".

These joint ventures were touted as an additional source of (much
needed) high margin revenue.

In February 2000, the Company completed an offering of Euro 690 million
in 6.875% convertible subordinated notes due 2010, pursuant to a
prospectus dated February 11, 2000.

This prospectus provided that the Company would receive $663 million in
net proceeds.  In fact, the payments from the partnerships would be in
stock, not cash, and the actual receipt of this money was uncertain at
best.  So, the agreements did not satisfy the Company's pressing need
for increased cash balance.

The Company's cash concerns have only intensified and the
aforementioned agreements have provided little in the way of cash.

Then, it was revealed the Company's CEO, Jeffrey Bezos, was being
investigated for selling 800,000 shares of Amazon.com prior to a
negative report by an analyst.

The Company's stock has now dropped to below to below $12 per share,
some 86% below the class period high of $85-15/16.

For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail:
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:  866-
561-3600 or 800-849-3120 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or tina@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.bernardmgross.com


CANADA: Supreme Court Refuses Class Certification In Landfill Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada denied class action status in the lawsuit
brought by the plaintiff, John Hollick, against the City of Toronto
regarding its operation of the Keele Valley Landfill Site.

The Supreme Court of Canada decided that a class action was not the
preferable procedure in this case.

The lawsuit was initially certified as a class action in 1998, but the
certification order was subsequently set aside by the Ontario
Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Angelos Bacopoulos, General Manager of Solid Waste Management Services
said the City was pleased with the decision.

Bacopoulos said, "The City of Toronto remains committed to operating
the Keele Valley Landfill Site to the highest environmental and
regulatory standards, regardless of this decision."

The Keele Valley Landfill is scheduled to close in 2002. The City is
undertaking a series of additional measures to expand recycling in
order to reduce disposal needs.


CARESCIENCE INC.: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross P.C. commenced a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Care Science Corporation (NASDAQ: CARE) common stock
between June 29, 2000 and November 1, 2000, inclusive.

The action, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company, David J. Brailer,
Steven Bell and Ronald Paulus.

The complaint alleges the defendants violated of Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a false and misleading
prospectus.

Carescience allegedly issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding its development of Careleader.com and Caresense.com, its
ability to recognize growth and remain profitable given the environment
for Internet-based health applications.

The Company failed to reveal that it would not be able to complete the
development of Careleader.com and Caresense.com products given the
environment for Internet-based health application.

Carescience also failed to disclose that it would have to abandon the
development of Careleader.com and Caresense.com and that the sales the
Company expected from those products would not occur.

In November 2000, the Company announced that it was revising its
revenue estimates for 2001, in part, because of its decision to
discontinue its Careleader.com and Caresense.com products.

In response to this announcement, the Company's share price dropped to
$1.6875 per share.

For more details, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail: 1515
Locust Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: 866-561-3600
(toll free) by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.bernardmgross.com  


CLARENT CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Initiates CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP commenced a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of the common stock of Clarent Corporation (Nasdaq:
CLRN) from April 20, 2001 through August 31, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that on Sept. 4, 2001, the Company
announced in a press release that it had discovered information
suggesting that its previously reported revenues for the first and
second quarters of fiscal 2001 may have been materially overstated, and
that the Company's Board of Directors was forming a special committee
to investigate a number of transactions that placed in question the
Company's historical financial results.

Clarent also stated that its first quarter 2001 revenues, as released
on April 19, 2001, and its second quarter 2001 revenues, as released on
July 19, 2001, will be reduced and the related net losses will increase
upon conclusion of the review.

In addition, the Company anticipates that its revenues for the second
half of fiscal 2001 and for fiscal 2002 will be substantially below
previously anticipated levels, and that the related losses will be
significantly larger than expected.

Clarent also announced that several of its officers had been placed on
administrative leave. On this news trading halted at $5.37.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


CREDIT CARDS: Court Upholds Class Certification in Retailers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld class action status in
antitrust case filed against credit card companies Visa USA Inc. and
Mastercard International by U.S. retailers.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. filed the suit, along with other retailers, which
include:

     (1) the Limited Inc.,

     (2) Sears Roebuck & Co.,

     (3) Safeway Inc.,

     (4) Circuit City Stores Inc.,

     (5) the National Retail Federation,

     (6) the Food Marketing Institute, and

     (7) the International Mass Retail Association.

The suit alleges that the two Companies have a monopoly in credit cards
and have tried to extend their dominance to debit cards.

The suit further asserts that the two Companies charged excessive
transaction fees for the debit card clearing process.

The merchants have challenged the credit card companies "honor all
cards" policy, which requires that if they accept any Visa or
MasterCard, they have to accept all cards, including debit cards.

It was the second court ruling to go against Visa and MasterCard this
month.

On Oct. 10, a federal judge ruled that the Visa and MasterCard
associations must allow their member banks to issue other credit cards,
clearing the way for American Express and Discover to more widely
distribute their products in America.

In the current case, the retailers won class action status in February
2000 in pretrial hearings before U.S. District Judge John Gleeson of
Brooklyn.

The appellate court affirmed the decision in a 35-page ruling, voting
2-to-1.

Attorney for the retailers Lloyd Constantine, hailed the decision
saying, "the entire issue will be determined in one, efficient case."

Visa said it would seek a rehearing of the decision by the judges from
the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while MasterCard said it was
studying the ruling.

Paul Allen, Visa's general counsel expressed confidence that they would
prevail in the suit saying that the "honor all cards" policy was
"designed to assure consumers that they can use any of their Visa
cards, regardless of type, anywhere they see the Visa logo."

By some estimates, a ruling in favor of the retailers could result in
an award of $24 billion in damages.


CVS CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of CVS Corporation (NYSE:
CVS) from February 6, 2001 through June 27, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements regarding its
business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company issued positive
statements concerning its business and operations, which failed to
disclose:

     (1) that the Company was unable to successfully address the
         national shortage of pharmacists and that this shortage was
         negatively impacting their business;

     (2) that the Company's expansion plans would have to be scaled
         back in light of the difficulties facing the Company

When this information became publicly known on June 27, 2001, the price
of Company common stock dropped sharply, falling from $44.10 per share
to $36.51 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

During the Class Period, Company insiders were able to dispose of
shares of their personally-held stock for gross proceeds in excess of
$8 million.

The Company was also able to raise $300 million through the issuance of
notes on highly favorable terms.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


DELTA FINANCIAL: NY Federal Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
refused to dismiss a securities class action suit against Delta
Financial Corporation.

The suit was commenced in 1999, alleging the Company violated federal
securities laws in in connection with its initial public offering in
1996 and its reports subsequently filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The complaint alleges that the scope of the violations recently alleged
in the consumer lawsuits and regulatory actions indicate a pervasive
pattern of action and risk that should have been more thoroughly
disclosed to investors in its common stock.

In May 2000, the court consolidated this case and several other
lawsuits that purportedly contain the same or similar allegations.

In August 2000, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint.

Delta filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in
October 2000. The court dismissed the motion last month.

The Company said that they cannot estimate with any certainty its
ultimate legal or financial liability, if any, with respect to the
alleged claims.


DQE INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Commences Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin and Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of DQE, Inc. (NYSE: DQE)
from December 6, 2000 through April 30, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and
directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition.

Specifically, the complaint alleges DQE issued positive statements
concerning the significant and positive impact that DQE Enterprises,
Inc., the Company's investment subsidiary, was having, and would
continue to have, on their financial results.

During this time, the market for initial public offerings had
dramatically slowed down. Accordingly, the ability of the companies in
DQE Enterprises' investment portfolio to go public was substantially
impaired.

Defendants, however, issued a stream of positive statements concerning
the Company's operations and prospects, but failed to disclose the
impaired nature of DQE Enterprises' investments.

The Company also failed to disclose that they would not realize the
investment gains that defendants had caused the market to expect. As a
result, defendants' estimates, projections and opinions as to the
Company's operations, products, earnings and income were knowingly
lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

This information finally became publicly known in April 2001, when the
Company reported its earnings for the first quarter of 2001 and revised
its earnings outlook for the full year, based in part, on the weakened
outlook for DQE Enterprises.

In response to this negative announcement, when trading resumed on May
1, 2001, the price of the Company's common stock dropped from $30.43
per share to $23.75 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

For further details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by Mail:
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Website: www.sbclasslaw.com


FLORIDA: Thirteen Firefighters Sue State Due To Inadequate Health Care
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirteen firefighters filed a class action against the City of Florida
alleging that city administrators intentionally compromised medical
care to cut costs at their expense.

The suit, filed in July, alleged that the doctors in the city's
employee health clinic failed to them about years of abnormal test
results that showed up during physical exams.

Serious maladies, including hepatitis, heart disease and lung
disorders, went untreated.

But until now, the firefighters' attorneys were careful not to describe
the city's actions as anything more than shoddy care.

"I don't believe the mayor or the city managers intended to hurt these
firemen," attorney Mark Morsch said. "What the city tried to do was
save money."

The three firefighters had physical exams at the city clinic in 1992
that turned up elevated levels of liver enzymes, a possible sign of
hepatitis infection and were referred to another physician.

However, three city firefighters who had similar test results during
the same period weren't informed of any problem, Morsch said.

All three have hepatitis C and one, Bob Flamily, is dying from the
blood-borne disease that, if untreated, can cause liver failure.

The firefighters are asking a circuit court judge to let them include
the new allegations - fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud and add 16
more plaintiffs, including two police officers.

The new charges center on the involvement of the city's Risk Management
Division in patient-care decisions at the employee medical clinic.

The firefighters have argued that the division, which is responsible
for minimizing the city's liability and handling lawsuits and worker's
compensation claims against the city, should have no role in the
administration of the clinic.

On Monday, City Council member Don Ammerman called for the resignation
of two staffers in the Risk Management Division over the treatment of
Larry Crumbley, one of the firefighters suing the city.

City officials scheduled a medical appointment for Crumbley, who
suffers from hepatitis-related liver disease, but the letter notifying
him wasn't mailed until three days after the appointment.

Because Crumbley didn't show up, city officials tried to have his
worker's compensation claim dismissed, Ammerman said.

Richard Levey, the city's Chief Administrative Officer, said he has
been meeting with the firefighter's union officials behind closed doors
for several weeks to repair that relationship.

They're negotiating a process to review firefighters' medical records
and investigate the quality of care at the clinic.

Mayor Glenda Hood's office referred questions to the attorney
representing the city, who did not return a call.


GENESISINTERMEDIA INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in C.D.CA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of GenesisIntermedia Inc. (NASDAQ:GENI)
publicly traded securities during the period between Dec. 21, 1999 and
Sept. 25, 2001.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, charges the Company, CEO Ramy El-Batrawi,
certain of its officers, directors and financial commentator Courtney
Smith with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that in December 1999, defendants plotted and
unleashed their scheme to inflate the price of the Company's shares.

The Company allegedly gave shares worth more than $3 million to a
financial commentator who helped send the stock soaring after he agreed
to issue allegedly false, positive recommendations for it on CNN, CNBC
and Bloomberg Television.

However, the complaint alleges defendants concealed the payment of
216,000 shares to Smith, in order to induce the purchase of Company
shares and raise tens of millions of dollars via multiple private
securities offerings.

As a result of defendants' false statements, the Company's stock price
traded at inflated levels during the class period, increasing to as
high as $25 in June 2001.

Then after the close of the market in September 2001, the Company's
shares were halted pending the resolution of an investigation.

The Company's shares remain halted and are in essence, worthless.

However, just hours before the announcement of the investigation and
"halt," El-Batrawi sold over $1.7 million dollars worth of his own
shares.

For further details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins by Phone:
(800) 449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.milberg.com/genesis/


GRAND COURT: Three Law Firms Commence Securities Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Seeger Weiss LLP, Frydman & Bergman and Morris and Morris filed an
amended class action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased
Grand Court Lifestyles, Inc. 13.125% Retirement Financing Notes due
November 30, 2003.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

Grand Court Lifestyles, Inc. was in the business of building and
managing assisted living facilities for the elderly and was affiliated
with approximately 53 such communities located across the country.

The amended complaint asserts causes of action for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as conspiracy to violate
Section 10(b).

The amended complaint alleges that certain officers and directors of
the Company, made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning the then existing financial condition and business prospects
of the Company in connection with the release of a Private Placement
Memorandum dated November 10, 1999.

These misrepresentations and omissions included, that at the time the
PPM was issued, the Company had enough working capital to maintain its
development plan for at least six months at the projected rate of
development, when in fact the Company did not have such funds and was
in the process of retaining bankruptcy counsel.

As alleged in the amended complaint, since disclosure of the true facts
would have had a chilling effect on their ability to sell the Notes,
defendants set out to conceal the truth about the Company's condition
and ensure that the private placement was successful.

The amended complaint further alleges that, as a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements, purchasers of the Notes bought notes
that would not have been marketable had the truth been disclosed, and
are currently in default.

For more information, contact David K. Bergman of Frydman & Bergman by
Mail: 18 East 48th Street, Tenth Floor, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
(212) 355-9100 by E-Mail: dbergman@frydmanbergman.com
                  
You can also contact Christopher A. Seeger or Stephen A. Weiss of
Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William Street, New York, New York 10004
by Phone: (212) 584-0700 by E-Mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com or
sweiss@seegerweiss.com


INTELLI-CHECK: Speziali Greenwald Commences NJ Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Speziali, Greenwald & Hawkins PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of short-sellers of the securities of Intelli-Check, Inc.,
(AMEX:IDN) between January 1, 2001 and the present.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for New
Jersey against defendants:

     (1) the Company,

     (2) Frank Mandlebaum, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (3) Kevin Messina, Director,

     (4) Paul Cohen, Director,

     (5) Edward Winiarz, Director and Chief Financial Officer and

     (6) W. Robert Holloway, Senior Executive Vice President

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20
(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The defendants allegedly issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market during the class period concerning
its supposedly strong and growing sales thereby artificially inflating
the value of the Company's stock price.

In fact, sequential sales from 4th Quarter 2000 to the 1st and 2nd
Quarters 2001 have substantially decreased.

Specifically, during the class period defendants reported materially
inflated revenue for the Company by:

     (i) manipulating the reporting of sales and revenue in its filings
         with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in its press
         releases; and

    (ii) failing to disclose significant competition having a material
         impact on the Company and the sale of its products

In May 2001, the defendants announced significant increases in revenue
for the second consecutive quarter when in fact shipments and sales of
products had actually decreased.

The defendants later announced that revenues for the second quarter of
2001 increased nearly 15 fold from the second quarter of 2000 and 10
fold for the first six months compared with the year ago period.

However, the defendants failed to disclose a possible change in the
method of accounting for distributor sales impact on revenue and
deferred revenues reported in its financial statements.

It is also alleged that the misleading disclosures have materially and
artificially inflated the price of Company shares thereby allowing
certain of the defendants to sell shares at substantial gains and
allowing the shares to close at or above $10.50 per share since
September 24, 2001.

If share price closes at or above $10.50 per share each day through
October 19, 2001, the Company will be able to force the exercise of
979,076 stock rights at a price of $8.50 per share thereby forcing the
sale of stock at an artificially inflated price.

At all times relevant defendants allegedly benefited, by virtue of
substantial ownership interests, through sales and otherwise, from the
artificially inflated stock price and rights offering, all to the
detriment of the class of short-sellers.

For more information, contact David A. Speziali by Mail: 37 Oak Ridge
Drive PO Box 1787 Voorhees, New Jersey 08043 by Phone: (856) 772-1006
or by E-mail: dspeziali@home.com


NCI BUILDING: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit IN S.D. TX
------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague P.C., filed a class action suit on behalf of
purchasers of NCI Building Systems, Inc. (NYSE: NCS) securities during
the period from August 25,1999 through April 12, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed against the Company and two of its principal
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for knowingly or
recklessly engaging in improper accounting practices that forced the
Company to restate its financial statements for the fiscal year that
ended October 31, 2000, and for the quarter that ended January 31,
2001.

In addition, NCI said that those same "accounting errors" could result
in changes to financial statements for the third and fourth quarters of
1999.

Furthermore, the Company said that a computer system installed in May
of 1999 routinely processed some accounting entries incorrectly -- and
that employees later altered the Company's books manually to mask the
errors made by the automated system.

NCI says it fired the employees responsible for the accounting
irregularities.

News of the accounting errors sent the Company's share price down 32%,
from a closing price of $18 19/64 a share on April 12, 2001, to $12
29/64 a share at the close of the next trading day, April 16, 2001.

For further details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Michael T. Fantini, or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
www.investorprotect.com


NIKE INC.: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in Oregon Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross P.C. initiated a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Nike Inc. (NYSE:NKE) common stock between December 20,
2000 and February 26, 2001.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon, charges the Company and certain of its executive officers with
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the suit alleges that the defendants repeatedly issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its third quarter
earnings and revenues.

The defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the material facts that
the Company was having problems since the summer with its demand and
supply chain management system which caused it to sustain reduced
revenues and profits in the third quarter.

In February 2001, Nike issued a press release that stated that the
Company expects to earn between $0.34 and $0.38 per share for the third
quarter ending February 28, 2001, versus its previously stated guidance
of $0.50 to $0.55 per share.

Donald Blair, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer stated that
"these supply chain issues resulted in significant amounts of excess
inventory of some footwear models, while other models have been in
short supply or delivered late."

He further said "Also, during this time period, certain officers and
directors sold their shares of Nike stock for proceeds in excess of $12
million.."

For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail:
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: (866)
561-3600 (Toll Free) or (800) 849-3120 (Toll Free) or 215-561-3600 by
E-mail:  susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.bernardmgross.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Bernard Gross Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross P.C. filed a securities class action suit on behalf of
purchasers of Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE:NT) common stock
between November 1, 2000 and February 15, 2001.

The suit was filed in in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its executive officers
with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants repeatedly
issued materially false and misleading statements overstating sales
growth and revenues for the company's services and products for the
year 2000 and especially strong fourth quarter 2000 performance.

The Company boasted that the Company's "industry leading portfolio"
would allow it to "continue to outpace the market and gain profitable
market share" despite the tightening of capital within the telecom
sector.

The Company also projected that they would achieve 30% growth in
revenues and earnings per share in 2001.

The defendant's statements were materially false and misleading because
at the time they made these statements, defendants were aware that the
economy in the United States had slowed down dramatically.

As a result, the defendants' misrepresentations caused the price of
Company securities to be inflated, allowing certain defendants to
collectively sell over $7 million of personally held stock.

On February 2001, the Company shocked investors by issuing a press
release announcing that it would not meet previous sales expectations
and would reduce its workforce by 10,000 employees.  

For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail:
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: (866)
561-3600 (Toll Free) (800) 849-3120 (Toll Free) or 215-561-3600 by E-
mail:  susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.bernardmgross.com


OPUS360 CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Initiates S.D. NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross P.C. lodged a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Opus360 Corporation (NASDAQ: OPUS) common stock at, or
traceable to, the company's April 7, 2000 initial public offering
(IPO), up through and including March 20, 2001.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, names as defendants the Company and executive
officers:

     (1) Ari Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board,

     (2) Richard Miller, President and Chief Operating Officer,

     (3) Richard McCann, Chief Financial Officer until September 11,
         2000,

     (4) John Harvey, director,

     (5) James Cannavino, director,

     (6) John Drew, director,

     (7) Irwin Lieber, director,

     (8) William Nuti, director,

     (9) Barry Rubinstein, director,

    (10) Roger Weiss, director

    (11) Fleet Boston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

    (12) J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.,

    (13) E*Offering Corp.,

    (14) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

    (15) Safeguard Scientifics Inc., selling shareholder and

    (16) CompuCom Systems Inc., selling shareholder

The suit alleges the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.

In April 2000, the Company commenced an IPO of 7 million of its shares
of common stock at an offering price of $10 per share.

In addition, Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., and CompuCom Systems, Inc.,
together sold 700,000 shares of Opus common stock at $10 per share on
April 7, 2000.

In connection therewith, Opus filed a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint alleges, that the prospectus was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) OPUS XCHANGE, a product that the prospectus touted as a
         sophisticated professional matching and project management
         software system, was fatally flawed and could not perform many
         of the functions detailed in the prospectus; and

     (2) that the Company had no basis for stating that the funds
         earned from the IPO would suffice to fund its aggressive
         expansion plan for at least 12 months following the IPO
         without additional financing.

In March 2001, the Company filed its financial results for the year
2000 with the SEC on Form 10-K.

The 10-K contained a letter from KPMG, LLP, Opus's outside auditors,
which revealed that there was substantial doubt about their ability to
continue as a going concern.

The Company's common stock closed at $0.15 per share on April 20, 2001,
a 98% decrease from the IPO price of $10 per share.

For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail:
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:  866-
561-3600 or 800-849-3120 (toll-free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or tina@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's
Website: www.bernardmgross.com


PENN TREATY: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague P.C. lodged a class action complaint on behalf of
purchasers of Penn Treaty American Corporation (NYSE: PTA) securities
during the period from November 7, 2000 through March 29, 2001,
inclusive.

The suit, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, asserts that the Company defrauded its investors by
reporting during the Class Period that the Company was experiencing
substantial growth that would not affect its fiscal well-being.

In fact, the Company did not disclose that its reserves were well under
the amount required by regulators, causing it to face possible
liquidation.

When the Company announced in March 2001 that its ability to remain
solvent was at risk, the price of Company stock dropped 42% in one day.

The Complaint charges the Company and its senior officers with
violations of sections 10 and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 for materially false and misleading statements and filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Karen S. Orman, Kimberly
A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone:
888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.investorprotect.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Online School Parents Consider Suing 300 School Boards
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Parents of students of The Einstein Academy Charter School (TEACH) are
preparing to file one of the largest class action lawsuit of its kind
against over 300 Pennsylvania School Boards.

The parents are discussing the possibility of an action after the
school boards refused to remit state-legislated funding to the school,
the largest online K-12 school, therefore causing severe disruptions at
TEACH.

At present, various Pennsylvania school districts have accumulated a
total of over $5 million dollars in past due obligations to the school
since the school year began in July of this year.

The refusal to pay has severely affected the transmission of materials
and instruction to the Einstein students who are located throughout the
Commonwealth.

The accusations in the suit include:

     (1) misappropriation of public funds,

     (2) corrupting the morals of minors,

     (3) defrauding taxpayers,

     (4) abuse of power,

     (5) unethical behavior on the part of elected officials,

     (6) the intentional infliction of emotional distress and

     (7) a number of related civil rights issues

The group also intends to name individual School Superintendents,
Schools Board Presidents and individual School Board members who have
actively participated in or endorsed the illegal actions.

Einstein Board President Murray Popkave says, "School districts have
avoided sending the required funds because they dislike losing the
allocated per-student funding when that student transfers from their
school to The Einstein Academy."

Many school superintendents hope that they can get legislators to
change the current laws, which support cyber charter schools.

Popkave further alleges that "school administrators have intimidated
and abused both parents and their children, attempting to get them to
leave The Einstein Academy with tactics ranging from threats of truancy
and reports to Child and Youth Services, to financial fines."

Robert Crowe, President of The Einstein Academy Parent Teachers
Organization, said that the school districts intentionally and
defiantly refused to transfer the allocated funds to TEACH.

Crowe says that they ".will be naming a number of individual School
Superintendents, Board Presidents and Board members. These actions are
so egregious that they far exceed the scope of individual liability
protection provided to school board members for misconduct of the Board
Members."


PINNACLE HOLDINGS: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross P.C. commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Pinnacle Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: BIGT)
between January 18, 2000 and March 17, 2001, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The defendants allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between January 18, 2000 and March 17, 2001, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Company securities.

The Complaint alleges that the Company repeatedly issued press releases
highlighting the Company's increasing financial strength through its
numerous acquisitions of wireless tower sites and its financial
results.

In August 2000, the Company revealed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) was investigating the independence of its accounting
firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

They also revealed that the SEC was investigating the Company's
accounting for certain aspects of its recent acquisition of certain
assets from Motorola, Inc.

The Company, however, stated that its publicly issued financial
statements were, at all times, prepared in complete conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles.

The Company further stated that the SEC investigation was nothing more
than a "political" issue to further the SEC's new provision dealing
with accountant independence.

Then in March 2001, the Company shocked investors by announcing that
the Company's previously issued financial statements for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 1999 and its quarterly reports for the three
months ended September 30, 1999, March 31, 2000, June 30, 2000 and
September 30, 2000 would have to be revised.

The defendants also disclosed that the restatements would be necessary
in order to properly account for the Motorola acquisition.

In March 2001, Company stock traded at slightly below $9 per share, an
88% decline from its class period high of $75.

For more details, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail: 1500
Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: 866-561-3600
or 800-849-3120 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the
firm's Website: www.bernardmgross.com


PURCHASEPRO.COM: Bernard Gross Initiates Securities Suit in Nevada
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross P.C. commenced a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons who acquired Purchasepro.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: PPRO)
common stock between February 12, 2001 and April 25, 2001.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada against the Company and Charles Johnson, Jr., the Company's
Chairman and CEO.

The suit charges defendants with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit alleges that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading information that misrepresented the company's financial
condition and prospects.

The defendants improperly recognized revenue in order to artificially
inflate the price of the Company's common stock.

The complaint further alleges that defendant Johnson was motivated to
inflate the price of the Company's stock because he had used his
stockholdings as collateral to borrow millions of dollars and would be
forced to sell his stock if the loan to value ratio was less than 25%.

The Defendants' alleged misrepresentations caused the price of the
Company's common stock to be artificially inflated through the class
period.

For more information, contact Susan Gross or Deborah R. Gross by Mail:
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone: (866)
561-3600 (Toll Free) or (800) 849-3120 (Toll Free) or 215-561-3600 by
E-mail:  susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: www.bernardmgross.com


REMEDYTEMP: Lionel Glancy Lodges Securities Suit in CA Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Z. Glancy commenced a securities class action in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of all
franchisees and licensees of RemedyTemp, Inc. (NASDAQ:REMX).

The suit charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors
with wrongfully inducing the class members to purchase franchises and
licenses.

The Company allegedly used misleading financial pro formas and
thereafter making it financially unviable for Remedy's franchisees and
licensees to stay in business.

This eventually forced such franchisees and licensees to abandon their
franchises or sell them back to the Company for pennies on the dollar,
after building the Company name within their franchise territory.

For more information, contact Tracy L. Thrower by Mail: 1801 Avenue of
the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067 by Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 (toll-free) by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


SHOPKO STORES: Berger Montague Commences Securities Suit in E.D. WI
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague P.C. filed a securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased securities of ShopKo Stores, Inc.
(NYSE:SKO) during the period from March 9, 2000 through November 9,
2000, inclusive.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Company allegedly issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market between March 9, 2000 and November 9, 2000, thereby
artificially inflating the price of their securities.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued statements concerning:

     (1) the integration of its acquisition of Pamida Holding Corp.
         (the owner and operator of Pamida discount stores);

     (2) the Company's financial results and the Company's prospects

These statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing significant
shipping and inventory control problems at Pamida's distribution
centers.

In November 2000, the Company issued a press release announcing its
earnings for the third quarter of 2000 reporting a loss of ($0.23) per
share - far below the $.02 to $.07 per share previously represented.

The Company also revealed that they were experiencing problems at
Pamida's distribution centers and that those problems accounted for
their reduced earnings.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Robin Switzenbaum,
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.investorprotect.com


SOUTH KOREA: KCCI Joins Business Groups In Attacks On Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry yesterday expressed
rejection to the government's planned implementation of a securities-
related class action suit system against companies that inflict losses
on minority shareholders through illegal acts.

In a statement, KCCI recommended that the government delay the
implementation of the system scheduled to begin next April, saying the
system could result in serious repercussions for corporate operations
unless the minimum prerequisites are in place.

KCCI also demanded that the government reconsider the enforcement of
the system as an economic recession is feared to continue following the
Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

"The strict implementation of various measures, instituted by the
government following the late 1997 economic crisis, more than serves
the intended purpose of a class action suit by enhancing the
transparency of corporate management," it said.

"The measures include the required seating of outside directors on
company boards and the introduction of consolidated financial
statements for business groups to prevent cross guarantees and hidden
losses."

On Wednesday, the nation's top-50 conglomerates issued a similar
statement against the class action suit system after a meeting at the
Federation of Korean Industries.

The government has unveiled a draft bill aimed at allowing minority
shareholders to file class action suits against losses incurred as a
result of illegal practices such as stock price manipulation or
accounting fraud.


TD WATERHOUSE: Faces Nine Securities Suits in Delaware Chancery Court
---------------------------------------------------------------------
TD Waterhouse Group faces nine securities class actions filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court arising from the acquisition of the Company by
its parent Company, Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Last October 10, 2001, Toronto-Dominion Bank offered to acquire all of
the outstanding shares of the Company, it does not already own, for
$9.00 per share cash.

The transaction is structured as a first-step tender offer, second-step
merger.

Each of the suits was brought on behalf of all holders of Shares other
than the defendants and persons related to or affiliated with the
defendants.

The suits similarly allege that:

     (1) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as a result of
         the tender offer;

     (2) the offer price is inadequate; and

     (3) Toronto-Dominion Bank is engaging in unfair self-dealing, and
         not acting in good faith towards the Company's public
         stockholders;

     (4) the Company breached fiduciary duty towards its shareholders

The suits name as defendants the Company, Toronto-Dominion Bank and  
officers:

     (i) Richard J. Rzasa, director,

    (ii) John Thompson, director,

   (iii) Leo J. Hindery, Jr., director,

    (iv) A. Charles Baille, Jr., Chairman of the Board,

     (v) Steven B. Dodge, director,

    (vi) Stephen D. McDonald, director,

   (vii) Wendy K. Dobson, director,

  (viii) Lawrence M. Waterhouse, Jr., director,

    (ix) John See, director

The Company stated its intent to vigorously oppose these suits in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


TEXAS: Harris County To Refund Court Fees in $1.4 Million Settlement
---------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Harris County settled for $1.4 million a class action brought against
them for assessing a $10 bailiff fee for every lawsuit filed in the
Harris County federal and state court.

Eligible for refunds will be those who filed suit with the Harris
County District clerk from Dec. 14, 1997, through Dec. 31, 1998, and
with the Harris County clerk from Dec. 14, 1997, through May 11, 2001.

The county will pay nearly $1.4 million to settle the case, but
$360,000 of that will go to lawyers for Ron Proler and Bette Kelley,
the plaintiffs.

Proler and Kelley will receive $2,500 and $1,000, respectively, as
representatives of the class while more than $1 million will be left
for refunds.

In  1998, a Dallas court proclaimed unconstitutional a state law that
allowed county clerks to assess a $10 bailiff fee per lawsuit.

The district court then stopped charging the fee in 1999 while the
state court to stop charging the fee as part of the settlement
negotiations in the Houston case.

The plaintiffs said it was illegal to collect the fees, stating in
court documents, "Collection of a fee where no services are rendered is
not authorized by statute."

Assistant County Attorney Linda Storey Mahar said the state intended
the money to hire sheriff deputies who serve in courtrooms.

The county admitted no wrongdoing in the written settlement.

Anyone who objects to the settlement can attend a hearing Jan. 28
before state district Judge Bruce Oakley, who then is expected to give
final approval to the agreement.


US INTERACTIVE: Weiss Yourman Commences PA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman commenced a class action suit on behalf of all persons
who acquired U.S. Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ: USIT) securities between
February 10, 2000 and November 8, 2000, inclusive.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, charges certain officers and directors of the Company
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Company was not named as a defendant because it filed for
bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The complaint alleges that defendants embarked on a scheme to defraud
investors in order to artificially boost the Company's stock price so
that they could sell their own Company stock for proceeds of over $5
million.

The complaint alleges that, while representing the strength of the
Company's business condition and prospects, defendants failed to
disclose adverse facts that made their statements false and misleading.

The defendants allegedly failed to disclose that:

     (1) an $80 million debt owed by the Company in connection with its
         acquisition of SoftPlus, Inc. would not be paid off and would
         hamper the Company's ability to reach profitability;

     (2) the Company was being adversely affected by dot-com customers
         which were having financing difficulties; and

     (3) the Company was being adversely affected by the lengthening of
         the sales cycle

In September 2000, the Company pre-announced that its third quarter
performance would be lower than expected due to rapid changes in the
Internet professional services market, including lengthening sales
cycles, re-evaluation of e-business initiatives by clients and
prospects, and reduced funding available to dot-com clients.

Following this surprising disclosure, Company stock dropped over 33%
from the day before on record volume of 2,105,500 shares, to close at
$12.937.

The September 20 disclosure, however, did not reveal the full extent of
their problems.

On November 8, 2000, the Company disclosed that not only was its third
quarter financial results worse than the Company had pre-announced but
that the Company wrote-off $8.8 million of non-collectible accounts
receivable during the third quarter, which amounts were primarily
related to services performed for dot-com organizations.

Following this full disclosure, the Company's stock dropped further on
high volume of 1.5 million shares, to close at $0.81 per share.

The Company's 10-Q for its third quarter later disclosed that, of the
amounts written off, $3.9 million was written off for NetSmart, and
$1.1 million was written off for Exist Corporation, companies which
were owned in part by certain of the defendants.

For more information, contact Weiss and Yourman by Mail: 10940 Wilshire
Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles CA 90024 by Phone: (310) 208-2800 by
Fax: (310) 209.2348 by E-mail: info@wyca.com

                              *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora Fatima
Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2001.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-
mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written
permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be
reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail.  
Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the
term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each.  For
subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *